Page2RRS

• 20 Mar 2010 10:25

  EXPLAIN THAT, HE SAID! Explain that, Lehrer said to Shields. Fat chance, our analysts said: SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2010 Explain that, he said: Your DAILY HOWLER keeps getting results! This morning, in one of her rare breaks from custom, New York Times columnist Gail Collins doesn’t discuss silly inane utterly pointless amusing sex scandals. Truth to tell, she doesn’t have a lot to say about proposed health reform, and she of course offers her mandated jibes about silly Dennis Kucinich. (You know? The former mayor of Cleveland? The long-time congressional rep? The two-time presidential candidate? You know? That laughable fellow?) But at least, health reform is pretty much the only thing she discusses today. Your HOWLER keeps getting results! But right up to this very moment, do understand what will happen if the House votes “aye” tomorrow? This is the way Lady Collins describes the events which may be about to occur COLLINS (3/20/10): On Sunday, the House is expected to finally vote on the bill that the Senate approved on Christmas Eve after a debate so endless that the wiped-out majority leader, Harry Reid, initially voted “no” by mistake. If it passes, it theoretically goes to the president. In the real Congressional world, there are still major complications involving a second bill making changes in the first one, under parliamentary procedures so abstract that they verge on the metaphysical. That would bounce back to the Senate, where the Republicans are vowing to find some way to stretch the process out even longer. See there? If the House votes aye tomorrow, the original Senate bill “theoretically” goes to the president! Go ahead—you’re allowed to laugh. The bill “theoretically” goes to Obama! Do you have any idea what that means? (Do you think Collins does?) Our questions: Does the original Senate bill go to Obama or not? If he signs it, does it thereby become law, whether the additional package of changes is approved in the Senate or not? Are you sure you know the answers to those questions? We’ll be frank. We’ve read so many non-explanation explanations, we’d have to say we do not. Something similar happened last night on the NewsHour, which is packaged, spun and sold as our highest-IQ TV program. “Explain that,” Jim Lehrer said to Mark Shields, speaking about this very matter. Thus encouraged, Shields brought the eternal note of confusion in. Go ahead—read the chunk of the transcript we’ve posted below! Our questions: If the House votes yes tomorrow, will the original Senate bill be signed by Obama? Will it thereby pass into law, no matter what happens after that in the Senate? And would anyone have the slightest idea from perusing this web of confusion? SHIELDS (3/19/10): I mean, Democrats on the Hill...were astonished that [Obama] was still talking about going to Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand. That’s something he will have plenty of time to do—if this goes down, he will have time to be a world traveler, because he won’t have much of a domestic agenda to push. And he’s got to sign the bill as soon as it passes, and then push the Senate— LEHRER: Yes, explain that. SHIELDS: OK. LEHRER: Yes, the—this is a rec—Yes, go ahead. I won’t— SHIELDS: This is the Senate—this is the Senate-passed bill. You can only use reconciliation on an enacted law, a law that has been passed. So, you have to pass this into law. And so— LEHRER: So the president has to sign it. It’s like any other—yes. SHIELDS: As soon as the House passes it, the president has to sign it. The changes that the House make then go to the Senate to be acted upon. The Republican strategy in the Senate is to delay. And, if you delay with amendments, a couple of hundred amendments, it can take you into the Jewish holiday. And that is— that’s a killer, I mean, because that ends the whole thing. And, so, he has to be here. And as soon as it does—if it does pass, finally, to be able to make the case to the nation what this is about, why we should be proud of what we have done. It proves—it would prove, in a wonderful way that the system in Washington is, which is deadlocked and can’t do anything, has done something, has done something big and large, that presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have been talking about. LEHRER: All right, now let’s look at it from the other side, David. Let’s say, here again, for discussion purposes, it passes and eventually goes. What do the—what are the politics for the Republicans, who unanimously oppose this all the way? How do they handle this? “Explain that,” the hapless Lehrer said. After which, confusion reigned: According to Shields, the president has to sign the Senate-passed bill as soon as it passes the House. Then, he has to push the Senate to enact the changes the House made to that original bill. “The Republican strategy in the Senate is to delay,” Shields then said. And if they can delay things right into the Jewish holiday? “That’s a killer,” Shields explained, “because that ends the whole thing.” Moments later, Lehrer added to the confusion, imagining, “for discussion purposes,” that the bill “passes and eventually goes” (our emphasis). And no, none of this is any clearer if you watch these bozos on tape. (To do so, ). Question: If the House votes aye tomorrow, will the original Senate bill become law, regardless of happens to the package of changes? (This would include the “Cornhusker kickback,” of course.) Easy! According to Collins, that original Senate bill will “theoretically” go to Obama! And according to the hapless Shields and Lehrer, the president will have to sign the original Senate bill right away—but subsequent delays in the Senate could “end the whole thing.” Alas! As you review these inept explanations, you are reviewing the work of deeply incompetent upscale elites. And let’s be clear: This is only one of the many aspects of this debate they have been completely unable to explain. Example: Do you understand another conundrum these bozos constantly promulgate? Here it is: Debate on the package of changes is limited to twenty hours in the Senate—but Republicans can propose unlimited amendments. Do you understand that apparent contradiction? Pundits constantly churn that formulation. Rather plainly, they suggest the GOP could pretty much offer amendments forever, without seeming to notice the confusion they have thereby introduced. (One example, out of a million: Sherrod Brown introduced this confusion on Monday night. Our Own Rhodes Scholar didn’t notice.) Final question: Do you think Collins understands what will happen if the House votes “aye” tomorrow? Do you think Lehrer knows? As best we can tell, Collins spends the bulk of her time mooning about insipid sex scandals. Based on performance, Lehrer seems to spend all his off-air time writing his bus-stop novels. In reality, these people are six- and seven-figure Potemkins. They play major journalists on TV—but in truth, they can’t explain sh*t. They can’t explain these bills’ abortion provisions. They can’t explain procedural matters. They certainly can’t explain your nation’s massive over-spending on health care. Nor do they care to try. Alas. These cardboard cut-outs can’t explain sh*t—and they seem happy to prove it.

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 19 Mar 2010 14:56

  LIPS LOCKED ON HARDBALL KEISTER! Brother Matthews sold you smack all through an astounding program: FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2010 The oldest story, Maddow/Matthews edition: Just this once, you can ask us about our business. Since you’ve asked, we’ll tell you the truth: Here’s the truth: We don’t care if John Ensign had an affair with one of his best friends—a woman who was married to his other best friend, his chief of staff. We don’t hugely care if he broke a few rules to cover it up. We don’t care if Mark Sanford had an affair with the love of his life. We don’t care if he paid $74,000 in fines yesterday. We don’t hugely care if he was guilty of (to quote the AP’s language) “improperly buying first- and business-class airline tickets, violating a state law requiring lowest-cost travel; improperly using state-owned aircraft for travel to political and personal events; and improperly reimbursing himself with campaign cash.” (Despite settling, Sanford denies wrong-doing.) But then, we didn’t especially care when Bill Clinton engaged in a foolish sexual relationship with someone who wasn’t a 21-year-old intern. We didn’t much care when he tried to avoid blurting the truth about it. By way of contrast, Sister Maddow does care, a large amount, at least about Sanford and Ensign—two men who are in the wrong tribe. For the past year, she has chased their sexy affairs all over town, clattering and wailing about the way Ensign even arranged a $1000-a-month internship for his chief of staff’s 19-year-old son! (This was supposed to be part of the cover-up. Sister: “That damage control included putting his mistress’ teenage son on the Republican Senate Campaign Committee’s payroll.” With Sister, the son typically belongs to the “mistress,” not to the chief of staff.) Last night, the cable evangelist explained her concern, speaking extremely sincerely with her cable channel’s official preacher, the Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy. For our money, Gaddy has started wading too far into this channel’s scams: MADDOW (3/18/10): No one—at least I wouldn’t be talking about Senator Ensign’s extramarital affairs, Governor Sanford’s extramarital affairs, had they not campaigned as family values politicians. GADDY: Right. MADDOW: It’s part of how they got the political standing that they’ve got. And so, therefore, their hypocrisy is a news story. Is that hypocrisy connected to that sort of—I guess, theological arrogance? GADDY: Well, it can be. MADDOW: Yes. GADDY: It may not be. There may be something else going on. Maddow wouldn’t be discussing these sexy-time affairs if it weren’t for [FILL IN THE BLANK]! A nagging thought entered our heads: Where have we heard that before? Oh yes! We heard that all through 1998 and 1999, when it was President Clinton who was being chased all around by the other side’s tribals. For the record, the contrast between Ensign/Sanford’s rhetoric and their affairs may have been worth discussing. In all honesty, Sister rarely discusses such things. It’s the hypocrisy, she told us last night. Here on earth, the analysts writhed. On Olympus, the many gods roared. But good God! Earlier that evening, on that same cable channel, Brother Matthews—now a man of the people—interviewed Ken Gormley, author of the new Clinton/Starr tome. And good God! You can watch the segment here. If you do, you may well get the impression that Matthews opposed the Clinton impeachment—thought it was all a big scam. Good God, what a fraud this man is! Last night, his program was a stunning series of deceptions, with Joan Walsh cheering him on at the end. But that segment about impeachment really did take a large cake. Go ahead—watch that segment. You might even get the impression that Matthews thought the GOP was way out of line. Last evening, this was Matthews, one of the great frauds of our time: MATTHEWS (3/18/10): Should there have been—I have heard different stories about this, that there are ways that it could have been avoided. They could have avoided impeachment. They could have just done a resolution of some kind. GORMLEY: Yes. MATTHEWS: Why didn’t that happen? Why wasn’t something done appropriate to the misbehavior, instead of putting the black mark against President Clinton for life, really, in the record books? From that and other ridiculous statements, you might have gotten the impression that Matthews was a Clinton-defender back when it mattered—that he thought the Republicans could have “done something appropriate to the misbehavior.” In fact, no one chased Clinton around much harder than Matthews did—and in 1999 and 2000, he endlessly chased Al Gore around, endlessly berating “the bathtub ring” for the capital crime of having defended Clinton against that same impeachment. No one chased the bathtub ring—“the bathtub yuk”—quite as hard as Matthews did. Of course, he worked for Jack Welch in those days. He hadn’t yet been re-purposed. On , was impeachment viewed as the fault of the GOP, who could have done something more appropriate? To refresh your sense of the era, what follows is part of the program on the night Clinton’s impeachment trial ended. As usual, all guests believed and said the same exact thing this night: MATTHEWS (2/12/99): We have a lot of historians joining us now in addition to Elizabeth [Drew], who's a distinguished journalist. Let me ask you the first question of the night. These are all tough questions. They have answers that are simple. Don't give me an Arlen Specter answer. Don't give me the Scottish answer of not proven. Who is most to blame for this year of—of scandal and impeachment, the president or his critics? Who is most to blame? DREW: You're asking me? MATTHEWS: Yes. DREW: It's easy, the president. MATTHEWS: Larry Sabato, who is most to blame, the president, Bill Clinton, or his critics, for this year of catastrophe? SABATO: I couldn't agree with Elizabeth Drew more. That's the easiest question I've been asked in months. The president. MATTHEWS: Douglas Brinkley, same question. BRINKLEY: The president. MATTHEWS: Carl Bernstein. BERNSTEIN: The president. That was the whole dad-burned panel! We’re not even saying they’re wrong. We’d just ask you to keep that passage in mind when you gaze on Matthews’ reinvented outlook, as expressed on cable last night. Last night, Matthews played you for fools all through his program (see below). At the end, a fiery progressive locked her lips hard on his keister. By the way, it’s like Sister said: With Clinton, it wasn’t about the sex! It was about [THE LYING]! Howell Raines, not unlike Collins: Idiocracy is powerful. Yesterday, we perused the latest inanity from Gail Collins, who ran the New York Times editorial board from 2001 through 2007. Her predecessor was Howell Raines. He held that important post from 1993 through 2001. The idiocracy is vast. On Sunday, Raines wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post “Outlook” section. In the piece, he tried to criticize Fox News. That wouldn’t seem like a difficult task. But the idiocracy is strong. Yesterday, we saw Collins’ inanity. In this, the first five grafs of his piece, Raines put ineptitude on display. The idiocracy is vast RAINES (3/14/10): One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration—a campaign without precedent in our modern political history? Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform." Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue. The American people and many of our great modern presidents have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The elections of 1948, 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2008 confirm the point, with majorities voting for candidates supporting such change. Yet congressional Republicans have managed effective campaigns against health-care changes favored variously by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Now Fox News has given the party of Lincoln a free ride with its repetition of the unexamined claim that today's Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care—if only the effort could conform to Mitch McConnell's ideas on portability and tort reform. It is true that, after 14 months of Fox's relentless pounding of President Obama's idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation. Fox invariably stresses such recent dips in support for the legislation, disregarding the majorities in favor of various aspects of the reform effort. Along the way, the network has sold a falsified image of the professional standards that developed in American newsrooms and university journalism departments in the last half of the 20th century. It isn’t hard to find fault with the work of Fox. It’s stunning to think that this was the best Howell Raines could manage. First: It’s painful to see Raines complain about journalistic “propaganda campaigns.” All through the 1990s, he lay at the center of something similar, through his endless editorials ranting against Clinton, in support of Ken Starr. (For Michael Tomasky’s painful rundown, just click this.) After chasing Clinton around for years, Raines and his own “cadre of raucous commentators,” including one of his former girl friends, then turned their guns against Gore. The types of shortcuts and errors which litter Sunday’s piece were endlessly used against him. Second: Note what happens as soon as Raines starts trying to argue a claim. He almost seems to be citing a quote from Fox: “The American people do not want health-care reform.” But has anyone at Fox ever made that actual statement? Raines never names any person by name; he never cites what any named person has said. Presumably, the words inside those quotation marks were actually meant as a paraphrase of things that are generally stated on Fox. Would it really have been that hard to cite real statements by actual people? Instead of doing such a thing, Raines treated himself to a bit of a shortcut. Instantly, Mr. O rebutted, playing tape of himself saying this: “I think most Americans want health care reform.” (Mr. O says such things all the time.) Of course, the New York Times dreamed up a lot of “quotes” when Raines ran its editorial board (and later, when he ran the whole paper). This sometimes cut hard against Gore. Third: Note the consummate dumbness. Within his first four paragraphs, Raines has Fox News saying two things. On the one hand, Fox says that the American people do not want health-care reform. But Fox also says that “today's Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care.” How well do those ideas go together? Discuss: What did Raines mean to say? Fourth: “The American people...have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt?” Sorry. That’s just perfect nonsense, of the type a fly-weight like Raines will invent to help drive a claim. Fifth: Raines describes that recent Gallup poll (48 percent opposed, 45 percent in favor) as “a recent dip in support for the legislation.” In fact, recent polling is as favorable to the Obama reform proposal as polling has been in some time—and even that Gallup poll produced a more favorable result than many other polls. What sorts of polls does Fox really cite? Last night, Fox was citing its own new poll (click here). It shows 35 percent in favor, 55 percent opposed. Discuss: Does Howell Raines ever watch Fox? Raines is out of the business these days. Presumably, he had plenty of time to assemble this piece, which concerns an important subject. Despite that, his piece was riddled with schoolboy bungles and schoolboy errors, even in its first five paragraphs. But so it went at the New York Times when Raines sat at the to of the pile. So it tends to go at the top of the mainstream heap. The idiocracy is strong—and it’s vast. Collins had been away for a month; she chose to talk about Eric Massa. Raines has been away for years; this was the best he could manage. Note to tribals: Yes, his prose made feel good. But would his effort convince someone else? Did it give you winning information? Did it give you winning arguments? It isn’t hard to make a case against the work that’s done at Fox. But the spirit is weak in the upper-class press corps, as Collins is constantly trying to show us. Raines let us see the intellectual weakness inside the high walls of Versailles. LIPS LOCKED ON HARDBALL KEISTERLast night’s was something to see, pretty much from its start to its finish. Its reinvented, re-purposed host pretended to be a man of the people. He seemed to pretend that he’d been a Clinton-defender. He lied in your face about policy matters (see below). And then, that ludicrous tape! We haven’t seen so clownish a tape since October 2000, when the cables assembled that foolish loop tape showing Gore’s many troubling sighs. (Culled from a 90-minute debate.) If you want to get played for such a fool again, just click here, then watch the tape MS has been pimping around. The tape shows brief clips from Bret Baier’s interview with Obama. In our view, Baier did interrupt too much—though Chris Hayes, who actually watched the interview, said it didn’t bother him, thus ruining Wednesday night’s Countdown. But do you think, for even a minute, that Matthews ever watched the interview? Please! This was the best this big slug could manage, discussing the session last night: MATTHEWS (3/18/10): People have to make their own judgments. I’m sure there’s other versions of that interview available on the web. You can probably find other versions. But looking at that, it looked like he was interrupted like 16 or 17 times, and clearly those were a lot of real interruptions in a reasonably brief interview. In fact, the full interview had been on-line at Fox since the previous evening. Do you think this consummate fraud ever watched it? “Looking at” his own network’s gong-show tape, “it looked like he was interrupted like 16 or 17 times,” Matthews stupidly said. He also didn’t seem to know how long the interview was. In a more rational world, a fraud like Matthews would have had his big fat ass fired right there. But this is typical stuff for Matthews. The fraud he committed while talking to conservative activist Tim Phillips was perhaps even worse. Uh-oh! On Wednesday night, Ron Brownstein had actually told Chris something! Brownstein was responding to Chris’ favorite new script: Republicans don’t try to pass their health care measures when they’re in control! Uh-oh! Responding, Brownstein said this about that: MATTHEWS (3/17/10): Ron Brownstein’s political director—you know that is pretty—I saw you shaking your head positive. I know that you are a straight arrow here. But the fact is, it is a fact. Republican offer these wonderful sounding, moderate alternatives, but only in the face of a Democratic progressive suggestion. BROWNSTEIN: The story’s a little bit more nuanced. The fact is that these are ideas that Republicans had during—when when they unified control of the House and the Senate and the White House, under Bush. Some of them did pass the House. Their idea of association health plans did pass the House. Medical malpractice, at one point, did pass the House. The interstate health insurance never did pass the House because that is a much more controversial idea that it is usually explained to be, because it essentially allows the states that regulates least to set the rules for everyone. MATTHEWS: You go state shopping. BROWNSTEIN: But fact is that all of these ideas were never able to achieve consensus when Republicans controlled government. They could not get them out of the Senate. They could not get 60 votes. And in— MATTHEWS: You know why? They really didn’t want to do it! Two of these ideas got defeated by filibuster. And of course! When the other tribe gets defeated that way, it’s because they really didn’t want to do it. If your IQ is 7 or 8, you will find that novel persuasive. (Small hint: Republican do want to pass these measures. The measures just aren’t any good.) Brownstein handed Matthews a bit of knowledge. For better or worse, Republicans did try to pass three health reforms; two passed the House, but were then filibustered. But so what? One night later, on last night’s program, Chris skedaddled right back to his thin, tiny script. This is what he’s paid to do. He’s paid to sell you dime novels: MATTHEWS (3/18/10): You and the Republican Party— I have guys on here like [Mike] Pence. Night after night, they come on and they say, if only we had power. And I say, guys, when you were in power under President Bush, when you had both houses of Congress, you didn’t do any of this stuff. You did squat. You never do anything. You wait for the Democrats to propose something and you point to the flaws in their proposals and have a big rally about it, how excited you are to point to the flaws, but you have no program. For Chris, it was straight back to the script, one night after Brownstein told him the script just isn’t real accurate. What’s wrong with this lazy, insulting conduct? Just this: Chris is too lazy and indifferent to learn how to argue the merits of these proposals. What’s wrong with those GOP proposals? On Hardball, you’ll never find out! Chris will just hand you lazy sh*t, the way he did all through the 90s, when he was taking out Clinton and Gore. He’ll hand you his crap all night long. After that, Cynthia Tucker and Joan Walsh will arrive, to ooh, aah, gasp and applaud him. It’s quite a feat—to keep sucking Hardball teat while your lips are locked on Hardball keister. Why must liberals be treated this way? Cracker, please! Follow the money!

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 18 Mar 2010 09:35

  DEEMING DISAPPEARED! Remember deeming? In today’s Times, the process has been disappeared: THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 Ain’t idiocracy grand: Gail Collins, the New York Times’ simpering ninny, had been “off” since February 20, by the paper’s admission. Today, she returns to her perch at the Times with this column After a month, with the whole wide world to discuss, what was on Collins’ mind? Of course! Ain’t idiocracy grand? This is the start of her column: COLLINS (3/18/10): Sex Scandals to Learn By Let’s consider the story of Representative Eric Massa, a freshman Democrat from upstate New York who made headlines recently when he resigned from office amid talk about sexual harassment of male staffers. Good God, Collins is awful. She could have written about any topic, including topics which actually matter. Go ahead—read what she wrote. (She also discusses Rielle Hunter today, although she skips Tiger Woods.) We’ll have to admit it: In all the nonsense which defines the upper-class journalistic idiocracy, we have come to be puzzled by Collins’ inanity ahead of all others. In fairness, we’ve recently had the burden of rereading Collins’ simpering, destructive work from 1999. George Bush rode her clowning work to the White House. From there, it was on to Iraq! But then, the idiocracy is all around. At a different point on its spectrum, we caught a few minutes of Glenn Beck last night, during his 2 AM re-broadcast. We swear: At the very moment we clicked over, Beck was offering this: BECK (3/17/10): There are easy ways to actually make the current [U.S. health] system, which let me remind you, is the best system in the world, bar none—there is easy ways that we can fix things. Did you know that the top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical tests—the top five hospitals here in America conduct more clinical tests than all of the hospitals, every last one of them, in the entire country of Canada or Sweden or Great Britain for an entire year? Five of our hospitals! Sometimes, you just have to laugh as this porcine, sweaty fellow rants about all the Communists (see below). In this case, we have no idea if “the top five hospitals here in America conduct more clinical tests than all of the hospitals, every last one of them, in the entire country of...Sweden.” But why did we chuckle at clap of thunder? Two reasons. This is the first: Current population: Entire country of Sweden: 9.3 million New York City: 8.4 million Here’s the second reason we laughed: By endless accounts, something like 30 percent of all medical procedures in this country are unnecessary. By endless accounts, our large number of procedures represents one of the problems with our broken health “system.” In other moods, people like Beck blame this on the lack of tort reform and the concomitant need for defensive medicine; presumably, that is partially right. Last night, Beck simply counted up all the tests, then proclaimed our unparalleled greatness. Again: We have no idea if his factual claim is correct. But given the factoid we have produced, we just had to laugh when he dragged in Sweden. Minutes later, Beck was naming the Communists surrounding Obama: BECK: Let me ask you why would any sane individual ever do this in the middle of an economic crisis? Well, at the core of Marxist belief is the redistribution of wealth. That is all this is. Take wealth from one group and give it to another. What is it the Marxist FCC czar says? That somebody has to decide who's going to step down to give somebody else a chance? This isn't about health or care. Look at everybody who's around the president. Let me just—let me just go through some of these people. Let's just start with Andy Stern. This is his health care. I mean, he's sending me fishes in the mail. Andy Stern. SEIU. OK? He doesn't believe in the free-market system. He wants to redistribute the wealth. He wants workers of the world unite. OK? Ron Bloom, he's Maoist. Anita Dunn, Maoist. Van Jones, communist. Mark Lloyd—yes, who is going to step down to give somebody else a chance? How about Jim Wallis? He's the latest. Oh, Jim, oh, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim. I've got a whole show—in fact, I could do a whole week, and we will, on you with your "spread the wealth" social justice nonsense. It's Marxist. Cable ratings aren’t in for last night’s show, which occurred on St. Patrick’s Day. (Numbers could be affected.) But last Wednesday, just over 3 million people watched Beck thunder at 5 PM. In that same time slot, only 493,000 people were playing Hardball. (Click here.) One final complaint as we call the idiocracy’s roll: No one else is in Beck’s class. But at 2 AM, we flipped back and forth between the Beck and Maddow shows. No one else is near Beck’s class. But increasingly, as we watch Maddow opposite Beck, we’re not entirely sure we see a clear difference in kind. In fairness, Maddow clatters and clowns on our behalf, hoping to send pleasing thrills up our legs. And she says some things which are actually accurate. (As far as we know, she made perfect sense about Virginia’s attorney general last night.) But on balance, as we watch, she seems to becomes a bigger hack right before our eyes. Ain’t idiocracy grand? The idiocracy has a vast sweep. We liberals have always yelled about Fox. But even when it was run by Jack Welch, we never seemed able to grasp the problem with Fox’s competitor, MSNBC. Each of these highly corporate channels have spread idiocracy hard. No one comes close to Beck. But we also groaned at Maddow last night. And Maddow spreads the dumb on our side. More Beck on Obama: As the evening progressed, Beck grew pensive about Obama’s background. The doctor was very much IN: BECK: Here's the sad thing that I don't think anybody will really ever say about Barack Obama, because it sounds mean and I don't mean it to be mean. This is truly a sad, tragic story. But the only way to understand first of all, all the people around him and then his thinking— I don't think he's an evil man. I don't think he's trying to do evil things intentionally. He really does believe Marxism is the way, is the answer, it is the future. He believes that. From the moment he was born, he had contact with nothing but socialist, Marxist, communist radicals. His father abandoned him. Why? So, he could go off to a Marxist school in New York. Then his father left the country to go try it out. How tragic? What kind of scar does that leave on a boy? Then his mother, I mean, this is—you tell me, what scar is left when the mom leaves a son who's been abandoned by his father for Marxism, leaves the son with his grandparents so she can pursue critical theory, which is Marxist. Both parents leave a boy for Marxism? And then he goes to his parents—or his grandparents. His grandparents attended the little red church, which was known for its communist teachings. This level of lunacy was admitted into mainstream “journalistic” culture with the claim that the Clintons were serial murderers. In 1998, Hardball and Hannity gave the crackpot Gennifer Flowers ginormous time spots to advance these soul-destroying claims. (Hardball gave her thirty minutes. She was so loony on that show, Hannity rewarded her with a full hour.) Flowers went on and on about all the murders committed by the president and the first lady. At all our big major serious newspapers, not a single “journalist” rose off his fat ass to complain. Two months later, Collins mocked and complained when Candidate Gore asked a young mother two questions about her sick child. The upper-class idiocracy is vast. It was firmly in place by that time. DEEMING DISAPPEAREDWow. Yesterday, congressional Democrats had a problem. They were planning to pass health reform in the House through a little-known procedure called “deeming,” or “deem-and-pass.” Republicans were squawking hard. Various people were having problems explaining how the procedure would work—or if it was constitutional. This situation was described in yesterday’s New York Times (see below). But this morning, in that same New York Times, deeming seems to have been disappeared! In David Herszenhorn’s front-page news report, Republicans continue to squawk about what the Democrats may do in the House. But Herszenhorn has rewritten his text from yesterday’s Times—and their squawking no longer makes any sense. But then, neither does Herszenhorn’s news report. See if you understand what follows. It seems to us that, on the front page of the Times, deeming has been disappeared HERSZENHORN (3/18/10): House Republicans said they still believed they could block the bill, a top priority for President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Under a two-step plan devised by House Democratic leaders, the House would approve the health care bill passed by the Senate in December, then make changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as budget reconciliation to avoid the threat of a filibuster in the Senate. Republicans like Representative David Dreier of California have accused Democrats of ducking a straight-up vote on the Senate bill, which has provisions that many House Democrats do not like. In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Obama dismissed Republican criticisms of the parliamentary tactics, saying he does not ''spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are.” We’re baffled by that account. According to Herszenhorn (and co-writer Robert Pear), Democrats have devised “a two-step plan” for the House to follow. What are those two steps? In the first step, “the House would approve the health care bill passed by the Senate in December.” In the second step, the House would “then make changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as budget reconciliation.” We are then told that Republicans like David Dreier “have accused Democrats of ducking a straight-up vote on the Senate bill.” In fact, every Republican, including the party’s highest-ranking leaders, have been making that same accusation. And by the way: Why would Republicans make such a claim, if the Democrats are going to use “a two-step plan” which starts with the House “approv[ing] the health care bill passed by the Senate in December?” Under that scenario, why would Dreier “accuse Democrats of ducking a straight-up vote on the Senate bill?” This accusation would make no earthly sense. But so what? Herszenhorn agrees not to notice this fact. For that reason, his report seems to make no sense too. Remarkably, this is today’s lead story on the front page of the New York Times, our most famous newspaper. But does this account make a lick of sense? Does it even seem to describe the state of affairs being described everywhere else? To our ear, deeming has simply been disappeared on the front page of this morning’s Times. Indeed: According to Nexis, no variant of the word “deem” appears in any health reform story in today’s Times. The word is gone from these texts. It seems that deeming has been disappeared! If you believe what you read in this morning’s Times, the Dems have devised a two-step plan! In the first step, the House “would approve the health care bill passed by the Senate in December.” But how weird! That isn’t what Herszenhorn seemed to tell readers in yesterday’s New York Times. In yesterday’s Times, a vastly different world existed. In yesterday’s paper, this is what this very same Herszenhorn wrote. We start from the top, with his hard-copy headline HERSZENHORN (3/17/10): Democrats Consider New Maneuvers for Health Bill As lawmakers clashed fiercely over major health care legislation on the House floor, Democrats struggled Tuesday to defend procedural shortcuts they might use to win approval for their proposals in the next few days. House Democrats are so skittish about the piece of legislation that is now the vehicle for overhauling the health care system—the bill passed by the Senate in December—that they are considering a maneuver that would allow them to pass it without explicitly voting for it. Under that approach, House Democrats would approve a package of changes to the Senate bill in a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate bill would be ''deemed passed'' if and when the House adopts rules for debate on the reconciliation bill—or perhaps when the House passes that reconciliation bill. The idea is to package the changes and the underlying bill together in a way that amounts to an amended bill in a single vote. Many House Democrats dislike some provisions of the Senate bill, including special treatment for a handful of states, like Medicaid money for Nebraska, and therefore want to avoid a direct vote on it. Republicans paraded to the House floor on Tuesday to denounce the maneuver as a parliamentary trick. Yesterday, “the idea [was] to package the changes and the underlying bill together in a way that amounts to an amended bill in a single vote.” Today, though, in the place of that “single vote,” we are told that the Democrats have “a two-step plan”—through Republican complaints stay the same. Has something changed in the Democrats’ planning? In today’s report, Herszenhorn makes no such claim—and Dreier is offering the same complaint Republicans were offering yesterday. All that seems to have changed is Herszenhorn’s account of the Democrats’ plans. Yesterday, the Democrats were planning a “procedural shortcut” in which they would “package the changes and the underlying bill together in a way that amounts to an amended bill in a single vote.” Today, talk of that “single vote” is gone. Today, the Dems have “a two-step plan,” although Republicans like Dreier still seem to be weirdly protesting that “single vote.” For the record, this is the way the Washington Post describes the situation today. To her credit, Lori Montgomery hasn’t changed her account of this widely-debated matter. To her credit, she talks about John Boehner, the Republican leader, without pretending it’s no-names like Dreier who are offering the complaints. That said, can you spot an unexplained problem in Montgomery’s account? MONTGOMERY (3/18/10): [Yesterday's] events seemed to boost the outlook of House leaders, even as they were unable for a second day to deliver on promises that they would present a package of changes intended to tailor the $875 billion health-care expansion the Senate passed on Christmas Eve to the demands of House members. Lawmakers were still waiting late Wednesday for a final cost estimate on the revisions, which must significantly reduce deficits over the next 20 years. After initially hoping for a Friday vote on both measures, senior Democrats said a Sunday vote looks increasingly likely. But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he remains doubtful that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her lieutenants can persuade 216 Democrats to back a package that he says lacks support among voters and has united Republicans in opposition. In an interview, Boehner vowed to "do everything we can to keep the pressure on" Democrats in battleground districts. His first move will come Thursday, when Republicans will try to force a vote on a resolution that calls on House Democrats to abandon plans to use a parliamentary maneuver known as “deeming” to pass the Senate bill without explicitly voting on it. The Senate bill, if approved, would go to the White House for Obama’s signature, while the package of revisions would be sent to the Senate under special rules that protect it from a Republican filibuster. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said the Senate could take up the changes next week, with a goal of approving the package before the Easter break. In the Post, Democrats still have “plans to use a parliamentary maneuver known as ‘deeming’ to pass the Senate bill without explicitly voting on it.” In the Times, this has been disappeared. Why has deeming been disappeared in the Times? Conservatives will say that the paper is trying to help the Democratic leadership, disappearing a giant dispute about that “deem-and-pass” procedure. It’s also possible to imagine that this is just a clumsy attempt to avoid “process” reporting. At certain points in the past—we think of the 1995 government shutdown—we’ve been amazed by the extent to which big papers will go to avoid discussing “process.” But Herszenhorn makes no sense today; Times readers are left in the dark. And this is the Times, our leading newspaper. As a matter of fact, it’s the leading story on the Times front page. Questions: Do you understand the difference between Herszenhorn’s dueling accounts? Do you understand the difference between the dueling accounts in tody’s Washington Post and New York Times? Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t understand. And these are our leading newspapers. You live inside a very low-IQ journalistic culture. If engineers conducted their business this way, all our systems would constantly fail. About that unexplained problem: Say what? According to Montgomery, who wrote the same thing yesterday: “The Senate bill, if approved [by the House], would go to the White House for Obama’s signature, while the package of revisions would be sent to the Senate under special rules that protect it from a Republican filibuster.” This means that the original Senate bill—including such notorious provisions as the “Cornhusker kickback”—would in fact be signed into law by Obama! Question: What happens if Senate Democrats then somehow refuse or fail to pass that “package of revisions?” We always thought this was the possibility House Democrats were looking for ways to avoid. If Montgomery is right, the possibility still exists. But most news orgs don’t even describe this situation—and Montgomery doesn’t explain why House Dems have decided that this isn’t a problem after all. Is Montgomery’s account correct? We have no idea. Good grief! What happens if Obama signs the original Senate bill into law, and then the “package of revisions” fails in the Senate? If Montgomery’s account is accurate, this remains as a possibility. But Montgomery doesn’t explain why House leaders don’t seem to care. In the New York Times, this apparent situation hasn’t even been mentioned. Ain’t idiocracy grand?

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 17 Mar 2010 11:41

  CHILDREN OF THE RICH AND FATUOUS AND THEIR PERUSALS OF DEEMING! Anderson Cooper played the fool, with back-up from Lady Stoddard: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010 History delayed is history denied: Despite that time-honored principle, we’ve pushed back the posting of Chapter 4 at our companion site, How he got there). We’re now aiming for next Tuesday, though it’s possible that we might even extend to a week after that. For those who are following, here’s our excuse, especially since this chapter has basically been in the can for years: Chapter 4 sets the scene for the press coverage of the 2000 primary races. By early October of that year, Fred Barnes had noted that Candidates McCain and Bush were both press corps favorites. (What ever happened to liberal bias? According to Barnes, Bush and McCain had “gotten along famously with the press largely because reporters like them.” Barnes said that reporters have a “liking problem” when it came to such candidates—that they tend to get “fooled” by such favorites.) Meanwhile, everyone knew that Candidate Bradley was getting treated in the manner predicted by William Powers, who had written a whimsical but probing piece in the National Journal about the press corps’ decades-long love affair with this most-favored pol. (“Let’s not beat around the bush,” Powers wrote in December 1998, when Bradley announced his plan to run. “Bill Bradley slays us.”) That left one outlier among the four leading candidates. That outlier was Candidate Gore, at whom the press corps “jeered,” “hissed,” “groaned,” “howled” and “laughed” all through his first debate with Bradley, according to separate reports by three major journalists. (For the world’s second report of this astonishing conduct, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/3/99. We had gotten a phone call that night—from just outside the press room.) (Note: Even after three journalists described this astonishing conduct, the “liberal” world never discussed it. In this manner, the “liberal” world rolled over and died—as would many more in Iraq.) Eventually, the press corps’ universally acknowledged “swoon” for McCain surpassed its love affair with Bradley. But as the fall campaign began, three major candidates were getting “puffed” (to use Barnes’ term). And the fourth was getting jeered. Where it led: Four days after that first Gore-Bradley debate, the press corps seized on a “speculation” about Naomi Wolf, inventing a ludicrous, month-long “scandal” about Gore’s troubling wardrobe. (People! His suit jackets had three buttons! Four, Arianna once said.) At that point, they invented the Love Canal “scandal;” this hardened the claim that Gore was a LIAR, turning the claim into stone. (Oops! Completely accidentally, Ceci and “Kit” had accidentally misquoted something Gore said. Plainly, their unintentional error was a total accident.) To state the obvious, this is the way George Bush reached the White House, although the “liberal” world has always refused to tell you the truth about this history. (Good God, how they love to play you!) In its full sweep, it’s one of the most remarkable—and most consequential—episodes in American journalistic history. And you’re not allowed to know about it! Too many of your “liberal” heroes are up to their ears in this mess. Chapter 4 sets the stage for those 2000 primaries. In the end, we didn’t like the way we had told the story, although it had been in the can for years. At the moment, we’re revising our story-telling. History delayed is history denied. But when dealing with matters so many have disappeared, the story must be told well Children of the rich and fatuous and their perusals of deeming(Last evening, Gloria Vanderbilt’s best baby boy opened his program with health reform. More precisely, he opened his eponymous program (plus a number) with this fierce presentation COOPER (3/16/10): Tonight: Whatever you think of the health reform bill, are desperate Democrats abandoning transparency to pass it? Are they trying to avoid accountability? Republicans say yes. And to point—and they point to a possible maneuver the Democrats may use. We are "Keeping Them Honest" tonight. It sounded important! And deeply principled! And so, after teasing the things he loves (see below), Anderson Cooper introduced his segment about health reform. As always, Gloria Vanderbilt’s best baby boy was letting us know he was “Keeping Them Honest.” Unfortunately, though, this very best boy was also in a pickle! You see, Nancy Pelosi had proposed something that was “anything but simple!” And let’s face it. If it isn’t gong-show simple, Gloria’s boy don’t get it: COOPER: First up, though, “Keeping Them Honest”—tonight, the Democrats. Five more of them in the House today saying they plan to vote against the Senate health bill. Now, that means opponents are only 11 votes shy, just 11, from defeating in its entirety the defining item on the president's agenda. For weeks now, President Obama has been saying, we need to know where congresspeople stand on health care, right? And he has been calling for a simple up-or-down vote. You either support it, or you don't. But, today, we got word that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering a vote that is anything but simple. In fact, it's a way of voting for or against something without actually voting for or against it. So why would they do this? Well, Ed Henry tonight is “Keeping Them Honest.” What followed was a roughly seven-minute segment about Pelosi’s proposal. In Henry’s words, Pelosi may perhaps “use a maneuver known as ‘deeming,’ where the House passes a rule to approve fixes to the Senate health bill, and deems the underlying Senate bill has already become law, without House members actually having to vote on it.” “Why would they do this?” Cooper had asked. In all candor, it isn’t all that hard to explain. Here’s a stab at the puzzling matter: Explanation: Nobody in the House wants the Senate bill to pass, or become law, without a set of relatively minor changes. (This includes getting rid of the so-called “Cornhusker kickback,” to cite one high-profile example. Cooper has probably heard of it.) The House could pass the Senate bill, then pass a second bill which includes those changes to the bill. But in passing the bill in the manner proposed, the House is in effect passing the Senate bill with the changes. In effect, they are doing all this in one step, instead of doing it in two. They are passing the Senate bill after making a set of changes. Repeat: They wouldn’t be passing the Senate bill. They would be passing the Senate bill after making some changes. But alas! To Gloria Vanderbilt’s dumbest boy, this is just too hard to explain. It’s “anything but simple,” he instantly groused. “So why would they do this?” Did you doubt that you live in an idiocracy? If you ever doubted that notion, we hope you got a chance to watch Gloria’s fellow last night. Gloria Vanderbilt’s best boy devoted roughly seven minutes to this (very important) topic, ending his segment at 10:08 Eastern. Ed Henry had stammered his way through an exposition, then David Gergen had come on to thunder his opinion about the proposed procedure. (He disapproves.) The transcript of the segment is here; you can read it, to see if viewers got anything like a clear explanation of what is involved in this proposed action. (Or to see if viewers were ever told what would happen after such a vote by the House.) And then, at last, at 10:08, Gloria Vanderbilt’s fatuous boy was free to go where he truly wanted. Result? He discussed Tiger Woods and his sexy-time troubles from roughly 10:10 until 10:25, his furrowed brow plainly letting us know that this is something that really matters. And then, at 10:25, he looked dumbly into the camera and dumbly told us this: COOPER: We're going to have more on Tiger— We're going to have more on Tiger Woods and his problems and how he's dealing with them, including a look at his religion, Buddhism. If you're interested, you can go for that to AC360.com. Still ahead, though, tonight in this hour: New developments in the case of “the Dating Game killer.” This guy is so creepy... At 25 minutes after the hour, Gloria’s boy was through with “Tiger Woods and his problems” (unless you went on-line). He was ready to move ahead to his next topic—to lurid tales of “the Dating Game killer.” “This guy is so creepy,” he said. His viewers still didn’t have the first fracking idea what “deeming” is all about. Since you asked: Where would Cooper go after discussing the creepy killer? Of course! At 10:25, this was his fuller tease: COOPER: Still ahead, though, tonight in this hour: new developments in the case of “the Dating Game killer.” This guy is so creepy. He is the former game show contestant convicted of killing four women and a 12-year-old girl back in the 70s. The question is, is he responsible for more murders? Clues may be in more than 100 photos found in his storage facility. Police are looking at them. They want you to see the pictures. We will show them to you ahead. And the pope under pressure—what did he know about sex abuse that happened when he was an archbishop in Germany? When did he know it, and why isn't he talking? “Crime & Punishment” and the Catholic—coming up. Of course! Along with the Dating Game killer, it would be “the pope under pressure.” Just like Tiger and the killer, the pope has sex problems too! Simple story: If you didn’t know you live in an idiocracy, Cooper was happy to show you last night, on his eponymous hour-long gong-show, which has gone massively tabloid. (Sorry, but that has been the framework even for the bulk of his Haiti coverage, which he continues even today, if he can bring on Sean Penn.) Meanwhile, on The O’Reilly Factor, the discussions of deeming may have been even dumber. Speaking in plummy pleasing tones, A. B. Stoddard condescended to offer this “explanation” of the procedure. Pathetically, this is the lady’s discussion of “deeming” (or “deem-and-pass”) right from the top: O'REILLY (3/16/10): I don't believe [deeming] is going to happen, Carl. The outcry in this country would be so enormous. The anger, so intense, that would pretty much doom the Obama administration. A.B., do you agree with that? STODDARD: I do think that you're beginning to get a sense with each passing critique of the kind of gimmicks the Democrats are depending on. First, it was reconciliation. Now it's deem-and-pass. With each one, they're losing more and more steam. O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean— STODDARD: And they're in some kind of political quicksand over this. I— O'REILLY: Just put yourself in the shoes of the— STODDARD: Even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today said, you know, the American people won't be— Real Americans will not be able to distinguish the difference between the two. What is deem-and-pass— O'REILLY: Are you kidding me? STODDARD: —versus what is supporting the Senate bill? O'REILLY: Are you kidding me with cable news and talk radio? Are you kidding me? Look— STODDARD: I don't think people—no, no, but— O'REILLY: You can't. Put yourself in President Obama’s bill. STODDARD: I think they're the same. I think, Bill, I think they're the same! I think you deem it, you're supporting the bill. Is it possible to be dumber than that? Stoddard said “deem-and-pass” is the same as supporting the Senate bill. But alas! Throughout this moronic Factor segment, no one explained that the House would in fact be passing an amended Senate bill. (“Amended” means “changed, not the same.”) Stoddard failed to explain that utterly basic point. Neither did Mr. O or or his other guest, Carl Cameron, except in a fast, glancing manner. In fact, Mr. O did three segments on this topic last night. For our money, no one ever really explained that the House wouldn’t be passing the Senate bill—they’d be passing an amended version of same. This was so hard and so confusing, it even escaped “MONICA CROWLEY, PH.D.,” as the lady is clownishly chyroned in her weekly segment. (A cruel person could say that this is another way Fox News has been semi-aped by MSNBC. And no, we won’t explain.) With her delectably plummy tones, Stoddard reflected her upper-class, napkin-ironing background (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/5/07). Plummy vocalizations aside, last night’s hapless presentations reflected a key point: More and more, you don’t have a “press corps” at all. In its place, you have a mahoganied club filled with the rich and fatuous—and their underperforming offspring. Addled legacies take to the air, with furrowed brows and plummy tones. Did you doubt that you live in an idiocracy? Gloria’s dearest—and Lady Stoddard—helped disabuse you last night. Gloria’s legacy: Cooper has now done segments on “the Dating Game killer” in three of his last six programs (March 9, March 12, March 16). Just a question: “Shocking photos” to the side, is this a real national news story? As best we can tell from a Nexis search, the New York Times hasn’t mentioned this case in the past week. Neither has the Washington Post or the Washington Times. Even the Los Angeles Times, where the story is local, only mentioned the matter once, on March 10. Just click here Two points: Cooper thinks the man is so creepy! And Cooper has excellent health care. Still coming: Howell’s complaint

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 16 Mar 2010 13:39

  MICKEY SPILLS! How much are American journalists paid? Kaus answers Solomon’s question: TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010 Is Charles embarrassed by Beck: Are certain people at Fox embarrassed by Glenn Beck? Yesterday, in this on-line post, Howard Kurtz reported that “many journalists” at the channel “are worried about the prospect that Beck is becoming the face of the network.” Kurtz penned an interesting report. For ourselves, we wondered if folk were embarrassed by Beck when we watched Bill O’Reilly interview Charles Krauthammer on last Tuesday’s O’Reilly Factor. Charles is a very aggressive Obama-basher. Last Tuesday, his discussion with O’Reilly began with the change in student loan procedures which Obama and congressional Dems have proposed. But soon, Charles offered his overview of Obama’s politics. As he and O’Reilly produced the following exchange, we couldn’t help wondering if some at Fox have become embarrassed by Beck: O'REILLY (3/9/10): Let me play devil’s advocate. And I'm sure this is what Valerie Jarrett or another one Obama’s acolytes would say: The president wants a clean environment. He wants the air to be cleaner. He wants companies to be forced to clean up their acts and use better fuel delivery. OK. He wants to give people who don't have or can’t afford health insurance, health insurance so they don't have to go to the emergency rooms and they don't have to deprive themselves of good health. And he wants anyone with the ambition to be able to go to college in the United States of America. That sounds like all good stuff, doesn’t it? KRAUTHAMMER: It's all good stuff, but as you know and I know, there's no free lunch. And the model for what he wants is what you have in western Europe. That’s not socialism. It’s social democracy. It's countries where they have extremely high taxation, very high regulation, and you're right, you get the goodies. You get the entitlements. It's a different way of doing a democracy. I’m not saying it's illegitimate, but it's not the traditional American way. O'REILLY: All right. He isn't going over well— KRAUTHAMMER: —much less government control in the United States. O'REILLY: Right. That's my last question. It isn't going over well. Even though, and you— I'm in complete agreement with you. OK? There's nothing evil about the western European system. It's just a different system. We thought that exchange was fascinating. It made us wonder if some at Fox have become embarrassed by Beck. Mr. O went on to say that he thinks the western European system “saps initiative. I don't think those people could ever compete with us on any level.” (In January, this column by Krugman suggested that Mr. O could be wrong.) That said, we were struck to see Krauthammer go out of his way to say that the western European system isn’t “socialism.” “I’m not saying it's illegitimate,” Charles even declared. Mr. O said he agreed completely. “There's nothing evil about” it, he said. We were struck to see this conversation on the network where Beck goes on—and on, and on, and on—about Communism’s obvious threat to this country, and Obama’s ties to same. Beck is in such a constant state of heat, he tends to skip “socialism” altogether. Accusing Obama of “socialism?” That’s kid stuff, best left to the serfs. Charles is a major Obama-trasher. On the other hand, we would assume that he’s filled with contempt for Beck. MICKEY SPILLSWe rubes are rarely allowed to know how much our “journalists” get paid. The press corps loves to get “all up in [everyone else’s] business,” to borrow a phrase from Way Too Willie, MSNBC’s morning program (click here). But the press corps very rarely arranges to get all up in its own. For that reason, we were surprised by one Q-and-A when Slate’s Mickey Kaus took questions from Deborah Solomon in Sunday’s New York Times. Kaus has been blogging at Slate for years. (Full disclosure: In January 2004, during the New Hampshire primary, we swallowed cocktails with Kaus at an extremely exclusive downtown Manchester night spot.) To his credit: When Solomon popped the question, Mickey actually answered How much do they pay you? I had been making in the mid-90s, and then I had to take a pay cut along with everyone else, and I was making in the 80s. I’m fortunate to make any money as a blogger. There are some who make more. Most of them work for The Atlantic. The analysts lowered their heads and cried. That said, we thought this was an interesting addition to the very thin body of knowledge about what journalists—and “journalists”—actually get paid. “In the mid-90s!” The analysts wept. That said, we have to assume that the issue of pay plays a key role in our devolving press culture. This is especially true at the TV level, where Chris Matthews is apparently paid $5 million per year, and Rachel Maddow is reported to be paid $1 million. People will do almost anything for that kind of money. And they do, every night of the week! Just turn on your TV machine thingy! (Matthews has been doing almost anything for well over a decade. Just last week, we reread the full transcript of his Hardball program from October 28, 1999—the day after the first Gore-Bradley debate. Even more than ten years later, that transcript remains a shock.) People will cower, clown, dissemble, betray for a chance at that kind of money. (A great deal of fame is involved here too.) Presumably, this basic principle extends down through the mainstream “press corps.” We do not mean this as a criticism of Kaus, who is quite witty and who knows about various policy matters. (Though we haven’t read his site for some time.) But we would guess that this general principle explains a great deal of the conduct observed all through the “journalistic” world. We’d assume this is true at the top of the heap, where people like Matthews clown for the really big swag. Presumably, it’s true at the lowest rungs on the career ladder, where fiery young journalists may watch what they say, thus keeping their eyes on the prize. How much are various “journalists” paid? (Example: How much is Maureen Dowd paid?) Rubes like us are never told. But people will do and say almost anything for the money found at the top of this heap. Just a guess: Almost surely, that’s one of the reasons why such swag gets doled. Essay question/Analyze and discuss: Matthews has always produced low-to-mediocre ratings at Hardball. That said: Why was he paid so much during the Jack Welch era? Why is he paid so much now? If he’s worth five million at 5 PM, how much is Beck worth? Explain. Suddenly, Susan spilled: On that same evening in that chic Manchester night spot, Susan Estrich wobbled over and spilled about her large pay at Fox. We’re not sure if Mickey was there at the time. Truth to tell, Susan spilled to Will Durst—and no, it wasn’t Durst’s fault. Why not visit our incomparable archives? See THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/19/04. Tomorrow—Howell speaks: Of all people, Howell Raines says something similar! Click here; cringe. Repeat.

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 15 Mar 2010 10:17

  INFORMATION NO LONGER EXISTS! We were surprised by a factual claim about the Senate abortion provision: MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010 Last call on a fascinating topic: We hope we won’t visit this topic again. But we were fascinated by a statement from Friday’s Maddow program. Rachel Maddow was speaking with Annabel Park, founder of the “Coffee Party” movement. Park wants to create a more civil discourse. Maddow explained why that’s an impossible dream, given the way some people are—people like kooky Ben Nelson: PARK (3/12/10): I would say there are three things about the Coffee Party. There’s a need for civility. There’s a need for cooperation in government. And it’s also about affirming the American community, that we don’t have to be so divided over our differences of opinion. MADDOW: Let me give you a case study. I think this is a fascinating idea. So many people asked me what I think about it and what they ought to think about it. And I think people are excited by this. But let me give you a case study. I did an interview a year ago with Sen. Ben Nelson about the stimulus. And Sen. Nelson argued to me that we needed the stimulus to be as efficient and effective as possible. And he said school construction was one of the single, most purely efficient economically stimulative things that you could ever do. He also then said he wanted less school construction in the stimulus bill. I was flabbergasted. And to me, the moral of the story was that sort of meeting Ben Nelson in the middle and cooperating with him on that one would be a bad thing to do because his argument was wrong. It wasn’t even internally consistent. Is it or would it be un-Coffee Party-ish to call Ben Nelson wrong on that, to say, "No, you can`t participate in these talks. We’re not meeting you halfway. You don’t make sense?” Poor Rachel! She tries so hard to be civil herself! But it’s very hard to do with people like Nelson around! Rachel described an interview with Nelson about the 2009 stimulus package. In the interview, Nelson “said school construction was one of the single, most purely efficient economically stimulative things that you could ever do,” Maddow told Park. But omigod! “He also then said he wanted less school construction in the stimulus bill.” Rachel was flabbergasted! So were we, when we looked at the transcript of Maddow’s interview with Nelson. But then, we’re often flabbergasted when we fact-check this cable talker’s claims about things other people have said. The interview in question occurred on February 9, 2009. Maddow raised the question of school construction three times, making a perfectly decent point: $15 billion in school construction had been removed from the stimulus bill, reducing the amount of stimulus included in the overall package. But Nelson never said anything dimly like the statement Maddow put in his mouth Friday night. If you doubt that, here’s the transcript. Go ahead—read the whole thing. (The interview with Nelson is about half-way in.) We don’t think we’ve ever seen anyone who misstates the truth in such matters to quite the extent Maddow does. On Friday, she did help us enjoy a good mordant chuckle. We can’t have civil discussion due to people like Nelson, she complained. To prove her point, she baldly misstated what Nelson had actually said. By the way, this is the way Maddow’s conversation with Nelson ended last year. Earlier, Nelson had claimed that the school construction money had to be cut to win Republican votes for the package. (Without those votes it couldn’t have passed, since Democrats had only 58 votes at the time. He also said he agreed with some of their views on the school construction matter.) In closing, he alluded to this earlier claim—and Maddow said she understood: NELSON (2/9/09): We had 61 votes today. I think we’ll have 61 votes tomorrow. If we hadn’t put this package together, we wouldn’t be voting on this tomorrow, I can assure you. And the president wants it timely, targeted and temporary. And that is exactly what we are attempts to do here. MADDOW: Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. I feel like I understand the political argument. I don’t agree with you all on the policy, but I get you did it for political reasons. And I really appreciate you coming on this show to talk about it tonight, particularly knowing that I disagree. NELSON: Thank you. MADDOW: Thank you, sir. NELSON: Thank you. Maddow understood the political argument. (They had to drop the construction funding to win those Republican votes.) She appreciated Nelson coming on the show to talk, even though he knew she disagreed with him on the policy. Nelson had been civil! Thirteen months later, Maddow was baldly misstating what Nelson had said—and she was telling Park that we can’t have civil discourse with people as goofy as Nelson. We’ve never seen anyone quite like this. Should progressives really let GE select our leaders for us? INFORMATION NO LONGER EXISTSHere at THE HOWLER, we had mixed reactions to this morning’s New York Times editorial about abortion coverage in the Senate health bill. On the one hand, we share the editors’ concern that “a handful of House Democrats who oppose abortion” may end up defeating the bill. (The editors still think that “perhaps a dozen House Democrats who voted for the House version” may end up switching their votes over the abortion coverage issue.) On the other hand, we tend to be annoyed at the type of high-blown talk with which the editors open their piece NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (3/15/10): After a year of national debate, a handful of House Democrats who oppose abortion may be the ones to decide whether health care reform goes forward or not. We strongly support a woman's right to choose and are disturbed by the restrictions in both the House and Senate bills on a woman's ability to buy insurance that covers abortions. But the opportunity to provide coverage for 30 million of the uninsured—and more security for all Americans—is too important to miss. The editors “strongly support a woman's right to choose.” They fail to mention that about half those 30 million people who will gain health coverage under the bill will gain it through enrollment in Medicaid, which doesn’t allow abortion coverage at all. (Except in the seventeen states which provide such coverage out of state funds.) Medicaid recipients are lower-income people, as compared to the people who will get subsidies under this bill. Often, they simply can’t afford to pay for an abortion, even though a first-term abortion is not an expensive procedure. We’ve been puzzled and unimpressed in the past six months as fiery liberals who “strongly support a woman’s right to choose” thunder about the rights of middle-lass people who will get federal subsidies, but fail to mention why they never say boo about Medicaid restrictions. They strongly support the right to choose? Or do they support that right for middle-class women, when it gives them a chance to posture? In today’s editorial, the editors thunder, clatter and wail, repeating some of the least likely claims made by those who oppose the Senate restrictions. On the third hand, the editors offer the following account of the Senate provision. Some of this seemed new to us: NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, says that unless the Senate's anti-abortion provisions are strengthened, perhaps a dozen House Democrats who voted for the House version won't vote for the Senate's bill. Before they push their party's signature domestic issue over a cliff they need to recognize how incredibly restrictive the Senate's provisions already are. Most of these restrictions would apply to insurance policies sold on new exchanges where individuals and small businesses could choose from an array of private plans. The Senate bill would allow any state to ban insurers on the state's exchanges from offering policies that cover abortion. In states that don't impose that ban, the exchanges would be required to offer at least one policy that excludes abortion coverage. They would not be required to offer policies that cover abortions. The Senate bill also bans the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortion services. And it would set up a hugely complicated scheme to make sure that happens. All people who buy a policy that covers abortions—not just those receiving tax credits to help buy insurance—would have to divide their premium payment in two: a small part (at least $1 a month) to cover the plan's projected cost of paying for abortions and a much bigger payment for the rest of the premium. The insurers would have to keep two separate accounts for the subsidized group, one to pay for abortions and one for all other care. It would be so cumbersome that it would likely discourage insurers from offering plans that cover abortion. Those restrictions are a blatant government interference in a serious health care decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor. But for some House members they are still not enough. Sorry. We just don’t think it’s “hugely complicated” to write, or receive, two checks, not one. We’re disinclined to credit claims made by people who thunder so loudly about such minor provisions. (This is a good way to make sure that others won’t take you seriously.) That said, we were surprised by the passage we have highlighted above. Under the Senate bill, states could “ban insurers on the state's exchanges from offering policies that cover abortion?” In other states, insurance companies were required to offer a plan which excludes abortion coverage—not so for a plan which includes it? We weren’t sure we had seen those provisions discussed before. We decided to make a search of the New York Times’ news coverage of the Senate provision. Does information exist in our culture? Does it even remain as a concept? We’ll have to admit, we were a bit surprised by what we found in our search. It’s always dangerous to make claims about what hasn’t appeared in a newspaper. In any search, some reports can be missed. It’s safe to say that X, Y or Z has appeared. It’s tricky to say that X, Y or Z hasn’t appeared. That qualification offered, we found amazingly little attempt to provide news coverage of this Senate provision. In theory, everyone agrees that health reform could fail due to the ongoing dispute about the Senate abortion language. That said: Can you find a stand-alone news report in the Times explaining the Senate abortion provision? It seems strange, but we had to go all the way back to December to find such a report. And yes, we found two short descriptions of the matter we have highlighted above. This is Robert Pear, five days before Christmas, as the Senate bill neared passage: PEAR (12/20/09): The [Senate] legislation also includes a proposal that would limit insurance coverage of abortion. The provision, which was the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place, was negotiated by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, to win the support of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, who is an opponent of abortion. Under the agreement, states could choose to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold. But if a health plan did cover the procedure, subscribers would have to make two separate monthly premium payments: one for all insurance coverage except abortion and one for abortion coverage. On December 26, David Kirkpatrick reported this same provision: “The Senate bill, approved Thursday morning, allows any state to bar the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion and requires insurers in other states to divide subsidy money into separate accounts so that only dollars from private premiums would be used to pay for abortions.” But as best we could tell, that was the last time the Times reported this part of the Senate bill. Needless to say, there has been no reported discussion of how this provision would work in actual practice. By the way: Does this Senate provision differ from the Stupak language in the House bill, or from the original Capps language? Three days before Christmas, Alec MacGillis reported this part of the Senate bill in the Post, but he added a point: MACGILLIS (12/22/09): The long-standing ban on federal funding for abortion has complicated congressional Democrats' health-care legislation. Medicaid bars federal funding for abortion, but 17 states and the District allow the procedure for female Medicaid enrollees paid out of their own funds. It is harder to reach middle ground in the bill before Congress, which would provide federal subsidies to millions of people to buy private health insurance plans on a new marketplace, or "exchange." The deal reached by Nelson and other Democrats over the weekend would allow those people to purchase insurance plans with abortion coverage. But they would have to write two separate premium checks—one to cover the bulk of their plan and the other to cover the sliver for abortion coverage, probably a dollar or so per month. States could also decree that no plans including abortion coverage be provided on the exchange in their state. As it stands, five states already have some sort of ban on abortion coverage. That makes it sound like five states already have bans under state law which would eliminate abortion coverage in the exchanges. Would those bans also have eliminated such coverage under the Capps or Stupak provisions? Our point about this is simple: Our two biggest newspapers have made virtually no attempt to explain how this Senate provision would work. Most likely, we read those fleeting reports at Christmas-time, although it was a time when we were on the move. But even in recent weeks, there has been virtually no attempt tin the Post or the Times to examine the way the Senate provision would work. On March 5, the Post did offer this front-page, stand-alone report, in which MacGillis described the abortion provisions in the Senate bill. But alas! Go ahead and read it! The fact that “states could decree that no plans including abortion coverage be provided on the exchange in their state” wasn’t mentioned this time. How would this provision work? Your big newspapers haven’t tried to explain! Your culture is very long on thunder—and very short on explanation. Very few things ever get explained, though we do hear lots of loud noises. By the way, one last time: Why aren’t the fiery editors upset about the millions of people who will get added to the Medicaid roles? They won’t be getting abortion coverage—and many of them will be too poor to pay for the procedure. Why don’t the editors ever thunder for them? Today, the editors are upset at the thought of middle-class women being forced to write two separate checks. How about the rather tougher circumstances faced by low-income women? We understand that the Medicaid precedent is quite clear, while there is no real precedent for subsidized coverage. But how strongly do the editors really feel if this problem never gets discussed?

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 12 Mar 2010 15:03

  THE BIGGEST NON-EXPLANATION! Where Krugman sees a pretty good bargain, we see an unexplained scandal: FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2010 The joy of sects: For our money, David Brooks writes an interesting column today about Obama. (Note: “Interesting” doesn’t mean we agree with very word.) He ends with this portrait of our devolving culture—and he uses a very bad word BROOKS (3/12/10): In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office. In our country, “many people live in information cocoons,” Brooks says. “They only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect.” That, of course, is increasingly accurate. Yesterday, in one of the sects, a feral fellow named Brother Beck was making his usual claims about the rise of American communism, tying in California’s traitorous teachers unions. According to Beck, “the top political spender in California last year” was “the unions, the teachers unions. They spent $211.8 million,” he said. “I’m sure it's just a coincidence. It has nothing to do with communism or social justice.” That’s what one sect’s adepts were hearing. They also heard Brother’s endless warnings about that very bad movement—“progressivism.” David Brooks is clearly a dangerous man, describing Obama in terms of his “moderate progressivism.” In one of our sects, there’s no such thing. Its adepts are helped to see this each day. This morning, the Times reports on some push-back against this sect. To read that report, just click here. Brother Beck is of course in a class by himself. No other sect leader even comes close, even on the Fox-and-talk right. That said: In our own milder but very dumb sect, did you know that Sister Maddow enthusiastically supports “a cumbersome, weird, intrusive” new law which “represents a new restriction on access to abortion in this country?” No really, it’s true—she does support that! But first: We wanted to show you some of the crap we got handed in our milder sect this week. We refer to Maddow’s groaning discussion of Bart Stupak this Wednesday night. Let’s face it: We liberals are pretty much All With Stupid when Maddow mounts her high horse about Stupak. Sadly, Maddow’s the kind of pseudo-progressive who simply can’t accept the idea that someone may simply disagree with her outlook, judgment or views. By law of the sect, there must be bad motives involved in such heresy. Result: On Wednesday, Maddow implied, again and again, that Stupak has pursued his quest about federal funding simply because it’s a way to get famous—to get his face on TV. She said this again and again, as she commonly does. Eventually, she said this: MADDOW (3/10/10): There is one way in which this quixotic nonsense crusade is working for Bart Stupak and the way it’s working is that Bart Stupak gets to go on TV all the time now. Jackpot! Look who’s talking! the analysts cried, issuing brittle laughter. Outside the sect, there must be bad motives! When we progressives get stuck With Stupid, there’s no such thing as someone like Stupak just having a different view. Maddow’s instant reliance on motive is the sign of a very light brain. But as always within this sect, fake facts were on the way too! Does anyone on cable TV fake “quotes” as much as Maddow does? Early on, she faked a quote from Stupak this evening, much the way her Uncle Orrin had faked that quote from Senator Conrad. Here’s how the fake quote went down: Sister wanted to mock Stupak’s claim that “at least 12 of us who voted for health care...have indicated to the leadership and others that unless you fix this abortion language, we can’t vote for a final version of the bill.” (That is a very bad thing if it’s true.) How did she do it? Of course! She pretended that her dishonest foe had been caught rearranging his number: MADDOW: Well last month, Congressman Stupak said it was 15 to 20 unnamed members of the House who he said had major concerns about the bill. STUPAK (videotape): But at least to the House members I’ve talked to, probably about 15 or 20 of them in the last 24 hours, they`ve said there are other problems with this bill. MADDOW: Fifteen to 20 members have problems with this bill, 15 to 20. Don’t worry about who they are. Well, now his 15 to 20 is supposedly down to 12. But, again, don’t worry who they are. Mr. Stupak says 12 members now would vote against health reform because they agree with him, that the bill should be used to try to restrict access to abortion. Maddow spent some time mocking the change in Stupak’s numbers—the change in his numbers which hadn’t occurred. Uh-oh! Assuming even minimal competence, Sister Rachel was pretty much lying to her adepts again. Below, you see the fuller quote which she had clipped to create her change in the numbers. Responding to a question from Fox fly-weight Bill Hemmer, Stupak had described the number of House members who had other problems with the bill, aside from the abortion issue: HEMMER (2/24/10): Whether it's reconciliation, or whether it's even the language that you want, I mean— As it stands now with all these moderate Democrats saying, “Hey, this is not the place we want to go right now,” could it even pass in the House do you think? STUPAK: Well, despite the abortion language, no, there are other problems with this bill. The president has tried to bridge the House and Senate bill. But at least the House members I have talked to, probably about 15 or 20 of them in the last 24 hours, they have said there are other problems with this bill. Duh. Stupak said he had spoken to 15 to 20 moderate Democrats who have said there are other problems with the bill, aside from the abortion language. He hadn’t changed his number at all—but Sister wanted to mock him. And so, assuming minimal competency, she went ahead and mocked you too. As she so often does. Consider the question of Stupak’s rent, which she also discussed on Wednesday. Last Thursday, Sister Rachel began to complain that Stupak’s rent had been subsidized by the organization known as “The Family” when he lived at their C Street house. Pushing her “newly famous” theme, Sister said this about that: MADDOW (3/4/10): Now that Congressman Stupak is newly famous, he does not want to be associated with C Street anymore even though he lived there for years. But here’s the rub—here’s the issue...Everyone who has been living at C Street, including Bart Stupak, has been getting a sweetheart deal. This is a $1.8 million townhouse. There are rooms. These are rooms in this really swanky town house that come with meals, the come with maid service, meeting rooms, common spaces—it’s a very nice place. How much do you think that’s worth on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., just blocks away from the Capitol building? How about $600 a month? Six hundred bucks a month, really? I paid that for a not-very-nice room in a third floor walk-up on a not-very-safe block of Guerrero Street in the Mission in San Francisco in 1995. That’s what Bart Stupak was reportedly paying to live in a swanky Capitol Hill mansion last year. Bart Stupak was not just paying to live there. Somebody else was presumably helping to pay his rent while he was living there. You can’t pay that kind of way-below market rent unless you’re being subsidized by someone. That’s an in-kind donation to a member of Congress. You know how sect leaders are! If you disagree with their views, they try to throw you in prison! In this case, Maddow said that Stupak was “reportedly” paying $600 to live at C Street last year, thus receiving “an in-kind donation.” (She made variants of this claim on March 5 and March 10.) But as it turns out, the “report” in that word “reportedly” was this news report in the Los Angeles Times—a long, informative news report which appeared in 2002! (Having been called by the Stupak office, Maddow slipped this semi-disclaimer into her March 5 program—but only barely.) In short, Stupak was reportedly paying that rent for his room eight years ago, not last year! But so what? All over America, members of a sect think they’ve been told, three times now, that he was paying that rent last year. Just for the record, here’s how Sister fudged up the claim in Wednesday’s report: MADDOW (3/10/10): The Family has, in the past, acknowledged subsidizing the rent for members of The Family who live in the house, reportedly charging about 600 bucks a month. Even though Mr. Stupak denies being a member of The Family, it seems clear from news reports, at least, that he was paying below market rent to live there. And if he wasn’t, all he has to do is answer the questions that we have put to him repeatedly: Who did you pay your rent to, Congressman Stupak? How much did you pay? And do you know who was subsidizing the rest? Did you report that subsidy as an in-kind donation? Did you report it as income to the IRS? These questions don’t go away because you moved out when the heat got to you. Mr. Stupak, you have succeeded in using this abortion stunt to get on TV a lot. If you really want Americans to know who you are, tell us who has been paying your rent. Good god, that’s awful! By the way: “In the past,” has The Family “acknowledged subsidizing the rent for members who live in the house?” As far as we know, Sister hasn’t sourced that claim. Given the way Sister works, that may well be a fudged-up version of something that’s said in that Los Angeles Times news report, which seems to get pluralized here. Does this dog-and-gong-show conduct matter? Each person must decide. For ourselves, we’re not sure we’ve ever seen anyone present so much flat-out misinformation on cable. (Clearly, Sister’s the queen of the pseudo “quotation.”) People like Hanmity are more clever; he typically tries to stay “technically accurate.” By contrast, Sister simply hands you the bogus “quotes,” and the facts which are off by eight years. And of course, the assertions of motive. After all, no good person could disagree with someone as pure as this. That said, did you know that Sister supports “a cumbersome, weird, intrusive” new law which “represents a new restriction on access to abortion in this country?” That’s the way she thundered on February 23, describing the Nelson language in the Senate health bill. Now, according to Sister’s reporting, the Nelson language will become law if the House passes the Senate bill. (The language can’t, and won’t, be changed, she has now told us.) But how weird! Last night, interviewing Nancy Pelosi, Sister forgot to ask her why she’d vote for such a new restriction. At least it’s better than the Stupak language, which would “all but ban abortion in this country by making it something that insurance just doesn’t cover any more in America.” Sister said that on February 23 too. Our question: Do you think Sister believed either one of those formulations? Or had Sister decided that it would be good for us to believe those claims? We saw no sign that Sister believes that claim about the Senate bill as she kissed Pelosi’s keister last evening, pretending to rage about Bush’s misconduct while forgetting to ask about the areas where Pelosi herself “reportedly” played along with what occurred. But then, that’s the joy of sect. Sorry. Sister is a cosmic joke, one of the many let loose on cable. She was massively unprepared for her current post. That said, she does lead a growing sect. Brooks discussed her today. How Sister settles the facts: If your IQ is 9, you didn’t squirm when Sister handed you what follows. This is almost impossible, it’s just so defiantly dumb: MADDOW (3/10/10): Without naming names, Mr. Stupak has claimed to have 12—at least 12 Democrats willing to join him in scuttling the entire health reform bill for this abortion cause. The Stupak Dozen, right? Well, today here’s some news. We spoke with a senior House leadership aide, whose job is to not just pay attention to Bart Stupak because he wants people to pay attention to him, but to actually fact-check Bart Stupak to see if he really does have those 12 votes he says he has. And it turns out that when Bart Stupak says “at least 12,” what he really means is not really 12 at all. This senior leadership aide is telling us today that after an informal whip count on the Hill, quote, “We do not see more than four or five members standing with Bart when this bill is actually brought to the floor." Four or five. So Bart Stupak’s unnamed posse of 15 to 20 became Bart Stupak’s unnamed posse of 12 and now it looks like it’s become Bart Stupak’s unnamed posse of four, maybe five plus Bart. It’s hard to believe work that dumb could get on local access. Stupak told George Stephanopoulos that “at least twelve Democrats have said that they could not vote for health care” if the bill included the Nelson language. But a leadership aide told Sister it’s really four or five, plus Stupak himself. To Sister, this assessment is of course true. If your IQ is 9 (or less), you didn’t squirm when she said that. (By the way, Sister kept thundering that Stupak’s alleged allies are “unnamed.” Did she name that leadership aide?) For the record: Like Sister, we have no idea what the real number might be. As far as we know, if there are any such defections at all, they could kill the bill. Just like a tarantino. PART 4—THE BIGGEST NON-EXPLANATIONDo you understand how the legislative process called “reconciliation” works? We were surprised by the following passage in Senator Conrad’s op-ed column in the Washington Post (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/11/10). Misleadingly “quoted” by Orrin Hatch, Conrad took to the Post to explain: CONRAD (3/6/10): Some question how the then-Republican majority used reconciliation to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001 and another $350 billion tax cut in 2003, all entirely unpaid for. These were clear abuses of the process. The authors of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which established reconciliation, never envisioned it would be used to worsen the deficit. After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007, we restored fiscal discipline and added an explicit rule requiring reconciliation be used only for deficit reduction. So it is particularly ironic to hear many Republicans criticize Democrats' use of reconciliation today, when it is being used properly, while they vehemently defended their use of the process when it was being abused. Interesting. Like you, we’d never heard of that amendment to the reconciliation rules after Dems took control of the Congress. Of course, we incomparably realized what this seemed to mean—before 2007, there wasn’t an “explicit rule” which required that reconciliation “be used only for deficit reduction.” (According to Conrad, the authors of the original act “never envisioned” that it could be used to worsen the deficit. Apparently, they didn’t rule that possibility out.) Jackie Calmes didn’t mention this 2007 measure when she wrote this informative report on the process for the New York Times a few weeks ago—about nine months after our biggest newspaper should have started explaining this process. Reconciliation was discussed by liberals all through the last year as a possible way to pass health care. But our big newspapers didn’t explain how the process worked—and our discussions were quite often unintelligent, uninformed. (By the way: Did Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “worsen the deficit?” In a sense, but not as such! In 2001, there were no deficits to be worsened; these tax cuts had always been proposed as a way to dispose of the large budget surpluses being projected for the next decade. Even after these tax cuts passed, the CBO and the OMB continued projecting ten-year surpluses—though almost all the projected surplus from general revenues had now been expended, the CBO said. But how often have you seen that explained? In Sunday’s New York Times, Mann and Ornstein said this of the 2001 tax cuts: “Democrats were furious at the use of reconciliation to increase deficits sharply through tax cuts.” That construction is hard to defend. But it creates the type of simplified story-line on which our novelized discourse turns, even when that discourse is being driven by non-partisan “experts.” Click here to see that statement in their large graphic. Conrad was more careful in his constructions, though only a bit.) In our journalistic culture, things rarely get explained. More often, novelized narratives get themselves hatched, and everyone agrees to churn them. Many things haven’t been explained in our long debate about health care; this includes much of the dispute in the House about abortion coverage which (apparently) could still sink the whole deal. But for our money, the biggest thing which has gone unexplained pops up today in Paul Krugman’s column, in a passage where we’d have to disagree with Krugman’s overall judgment. Let’s be clear: Within the world of the big mainstream press, Krugman has been the reigning MVE (Most Valuable Explainer) for the past dozen years. It’s hard to imagine our discourse over that time without Krugman’s work. But on balance, we’d disagree with what Krugman says in the following passage, as he ticks off the second in a list of myths about proposed health reform. For our money, Krugman is acquiescing in the greatest non-explanation of the entire past year: KRUGMAN (3/12/10): The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it. Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost. We mentioned the actuary’s prediction last week, when it popped back up in the discussion courtesy of Ron Brownstein. Under reform, health care spending will continue to grow at the rate that’s projected without reform (plus one percent)—but 34 million extra people will have insurance coverage! At the time, we said you could look at that prediction two ways. Krugman takes the rosier view about what the actuary said. On balance, we’d disagree with that. This takes us back to the largest thing which has gone unexplained this past year. Let’s suppose the actuary is right. Let’s suppose our health care spending continues to grow as currently projected, but 34 million people are added to insurance rolls. Would that really be “a pretty good bargain?” In a sense, but not as such! Let’s do a small thought experiment: Suppose we already had universal coverage, like all comparable nations. Suppose we already had such coverage in 2007, when these spending figures obtained (OECD data): Total spending on health care, per person, 2007 United States: $7290 Canada: $3895 France: $3601 Germany: $3588 United Kingdom: $2992 Italy: $2686 Spain: $2671 Japan: $2581 (2006) If we had universal coverage, and those figures obtained, would anyone think we were getting “a pretty good bargain?” In a rational world, those figures would define a national scandal, even if we had universal coverage, as all those other nations do. Good God! Even if we had universal coverage, those figures would define a world in which we were spending two to three times as much as all comparable nations—nations which get equivalent outcomes. Why would call that a good bargain? In fact, two obvious questions would obtain: Where is all our money going? Who is ripping us off? Isn’t that pretty much the situation which will obtain if our spending continues to “sky-rocket” at the rate which has been projected—even if we do end up with much wider coverage? We understand what Krugman is saying today—but to us, he’s abandoned an earlier post. Back in 2005, it was Krugman who wrote the important series of columns noting the lunacy of our health care spending level. In one of those columns, he used a good word—“amazing”—to describe our level of spending (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/26/09). “[N]ow is a good time to ask why other advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we do, while getting better results,” Krugman said in one column that year. Those were very important columns about a truly “amazing” situation. Four years later, a major health debate broke out—and everyone agreed to avoid discussing the ludicrous situation Krugman described that year. Many things have gone unexplained in the course of our health care pseudo-discussion. By far, this was the largest and most important. All elites have agreed not to ask where Americans’ money is going. One example: By far, this was the most unexplained topic in T. R. Reid’s quite informative book. Into whose pocket has all that dough flown? Don’t ask! They’ve agreed not to tell.

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 11 Mar 2010 13:50

  HEN CONRAD EXPLAINED! Senator Conrad explained, two times. Macaque-like confusion obtained: THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010 Standardized reporting: We never cease to be amazed by reporting about “educational standards.” Example: Sam Dillon’s front-page report in today’s New York Times. A similar front-page report appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post, written by Nick Anderson. (We can’t find a link to that piece.) You know how major things don’t get explained? These reports provide basic examples. Dillon’s report discusses the movement to create “a uniform set of academic standards” for the nation’s public schools. There’s nothing “wrong” with that idea; in some ways, it may be a good idea. But here’s the way the idea is described. As someone who spent a dozen years teaching in Baltimore’s public schools, we already don’t understand this: DILLON (3/11/10): A panel of educators convened by the nation's governors and state school superintendents proposed a uniform set of academic standards on Wednesday, laying out their vision for what all the nation's public school children should learn in math and English, year by year, from kindergarten to high school graduation. The new proposals could transform American education, replacing the patchwork of standards ranging from mediocre to world-class that have been written by local educators in every state. But should all children really learn the same things, “year by year, from kindergarten to high school graduation?” Should all fifth graders be taught the same math lessons, for example? Should kids who still can’t do third-grade math be taught the fifth-grade math curriculum? How about fifth-graders for whom the fifth-grade math would be boring, because they’re already past that point? Should they be “taught” the fifth-grade math anyway? Would anyone think that made sense? Should all eighth-graders be taught the same math? Aren’t a good number of our eighth-graders several years behind in math? Haven’t a lot of our eighth-graders already breezed through algebra? Should all those kids be taught the same lessons? As Dillon continues, he offers this, not unlike Anderson before him: DILLON (): Under the proposed standards for English, for example, fifth graders would be expected to explain the differences between drama and prose, and to identify elements of drama like characters, dialogue and stage directions. Seventh graders would study, among other math concepts, proportional relationships, operations with rational numbers and solutions for linear equations. But should all seventh-graders really be taught “solutions for linear equations?” Does that include seventh-graders who can’t pass the fourth-grade math test? In our view, anyone who has spent ten minutes teaching in public schools might be puzzled by the premise which animates Dillon’s report (and Anderson’s). Yet reports like this never attempt to explain this conundrum. The “experts” quoted in these reports are never asked to explain. In this report, Dillon also makes a standard set of conflations about what it means to “lower standards.” (Does it mean you changed your curriculum? Or does it mean you left the curriculum alone, but made your proficiency test a bit easier?) But he never addresses that one basic question: Are these “experts” really saying that all the kids in a certain grade should be taught the same math lessons? Should all kids be on the same page? Presumably, nothing like that is being done anywhere in the country today. Can that really be what these experts are saying? Why does no one explain? That said, we were also baffled by Dillon’s report in yesterday’s Times. That report concerned achievement rates in American schools, as compared to achievement rates in other nations. The headline: “Many Nations Passing U.S. In Education, Expert Says.” As he started, Dillon painted a somewhat gloomy picture—a picture which may well be accurate: DILLON (3/10/10): One of the world's foremost experts on comparing national school systems told lawmakers on Tuesday that many other countries were surpassing the United States in educational attainment, including Canada, where he said 15-year-old students were, on average, more than one school year ahead of American 15-year-olds. America's education advantage, unrivaled in the years after World War II, is eroding quickly as a greater proportion of students in more and more countries graduate from high school and college and score higher on achievement tests than students in the United States, said Andreas Schleicher, a senior education official at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, which helps coordinate policies for 30 of the world's richest countries. According to Schleicher, many countries are “surpassing the United States in educational attainment.” As Dillon reports a bit later on, Schleicher “based many of his international comparisons on data from the O.E.C.D. Program for International Student Assessment, which tests students in scores of countries every three years in math, reading or science.” Those may be perfectly decent tests. It may well be that kids in Canada, and in other nations, are outscoring American kids on those tests; it may well be that those higher scores reflect real differences in achievement. But assuming those differences are real, what might explain them? As usual, we quickly find ourselves getting handed this perfectly standardized pabulum: DILLON: Mr. Schleicher based many of his international comparisons on data from the O.E.C.D. Program for International Student Assessment, which tests students in scores of countries every three years in math, reading or science. He said Finland had the world's “best performing education system,” partly because of its highly effective way of recruiting, training and supporting teachers. Just like that, we’re back to The Finland Station, where these reports often fly! But in what sense does Finland have the world’s “best performing education system?” Does this simply mean that Finland’s kids got the highest scores on the OECD tests? Dillon doesn’t explain—but he quickly offers a selective, partial explanation for Finland’s (undefined) high performance: Finland is the best performing system “partly because of its highly effective way of recruiting, training and supporting teachers.” (Note a key word: “partly.”) But: Could Finland possibly be best-performing because it’s a small, mono-cultural, middle-class nation? A nation with little poverty and little immigration—a nation with few “second language” kids? Put another way: How do middle-class American kids score on these tests, as compared to middle-class Finnish kids? Year after year, these scripted reports appear—but no one ever explains. One last question from this report. What does “sagging” mean? DILLON: The committee also heard from Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers' union; John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, a group that represents corporate executives; and Charles Butt, chief executive of a supermarket chain in Texas, who said employers there faced increasing difficulties in hiring qualified young workers. The blame for America's sagging academic achievement does not lie solely with public schools, Mr. Butt said, but also with dysfunctional families and a culture that undervalues education. “Schools are inheriting an overentertained, distracted student,” he said. Mildly comical note: In this passage, we learn what’s wrong with America’s schools from the CEO of a supermarket chain! That said, here’s the basic question raised by that unexplained highlighted phrase: At the start of his report, Dillon said that other countries are moving past the US in educational achievement—that America’s “educational advantage is eroding.” To state the obvious, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that US achievement levels were dropping. Here, though, we are told that US academic achievement is “sagging.” Does that mean that American scores on these tests are actually dropping—getting lower as years go by? Dillon doesn’t explain. (As far as we know, US achievement rates have been rising on most major international and domestic tests.) Like many others, Dillon tends to offer standardized reports about our success on standardized tests. But: Should all kids really be taught the same things year by year? Are US achievement rates really sagging? At the very top of American journalism, Dillon didn’t explain. Just an opinion: In this graphic, Dillon provides some of the proposed academic standards. Just a thought: We feel sorry for kids who are taught in accord with those standards for teaching “literature.” Want to teach kids how to hate books, and the life of the mind? Here’s one possible way: Bore them to death with those frameworks! PART 3—WHEN CONRAD EXPLAINEDNot once, but twice in recent weeks, Senator Conrad did a very dumb thing—he offered a clear explanation of something! Predictably enough, his clear explanation left major journalists shrieking and scratching their heads, not unlike a gang of macaques exposed to their very first flash cubes. Senator! Explanation isn’t done! A bit of bone-simple background: As anyone keeping close track would know, Democrats plan to use the legislative process known as “reconciliation” to help pass health reform. But two weeks ago, on Face the Nation, Senator Conrad made a ghastly mistake—a mistake involving breach of protocol. With several million people watching (including Bob Schieffer), Senator Conrad tried to explain explained how that process would work: CONRAD (2/28/10): Bob, can I just—on the question of reconciliation. SCHIEFFER: Let Senator Conrad come in here. Senator Conrad was playing with fire. For unknown reasons, he was planning to explain a bone-simple process to Schieffer! In modern journalism, this just isn’t done! Foolishly, though, he proceeded: CONRAD (continuing directly): On the question of reconciliation, I've said all year, as chairman of the Budget Committee, reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health-care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction. So let's be clear: On the major Medicare or health-care reform legislation, that can't move to reconciliation. The role for reconciliation would be very limited. It would be on side-car issues designed to improve what passed the Senate, and what would have to pass the House for health-care reform to move forward. So using reconciliation would not be for the main package at all. It would be for certain side-car issues, like how much does the federal government put up to pay for the Medicaid expansion? What is done to improve the affordability of the package that's come out of the Senate but it would not be used. For our money, Conrad’s explanation could have been clearer. He shouldn’t have used jargon like “side-car issues.” He should have avoided the murky term “comprehensive.” But his explanation was basically clear: Reconciliation wouldn’t be used to pass the full health reform bill; that full bill has already passed the Senate. Reconciliation would only be used to make minor adjustments to that package—minor adjustments designed to improve what the Senate has already passed. Just in case this wasn’t yet clear, Conrad explained it again: CONRAD: Health-care reform, the major package, would not be done through reconciliation. That would be unreasonable. But that's not going to happen here. The major package will not be passed through reconciliation! Conrad had now splained that twice. By February 28, of course, any major professional newsman should already have known these basic things. Schieffer should have able to recite this in his sleep. But for some reason, Schieffer seemed perplexed by what Conrad said—a bit kerflubbled even. Something he’d seen on Meet the Press had left him with furrowed brow: SCHIEFFER: Let me just throw this in, because I'm not sure the White House has the same understanding of this that you do, because the woman—Nancy DeParle, who is kind of in change of Medicare over there at the White House, I mean, in health care over there at the White House—said this morning on Meet the Press, she thought that an “up-or-down vote” would be the way to go on this. So obviously she's talking about trying to do it through reconciliation, Senator. For our money, DeParle was a bit unclear in what she said on Meet the Press. But was she “obviously” talking about passing the whole health package through reconciliation? It’s hard to know why Scheiffer would think that—except for the rules of the tribe. You see, big modern journalists have a key rule: They simply never explain anything. They spend their time memorizing silly scripts about personality-driven topics; they proceed to recite these silly scripts in all available settings. They rarely try to explain much of anything—and they tend to be deeply baffled when they see others do so. That may explain what happened when Conrad explained this matter again. Conrad’s second explanation appeared in the March 6 Washington Post. Doggone it! In a March 2 op-ed piece in the Post, Orrin Hatch had quoted Conrad from last year, when Conrad had said that reconciliation couldn’t be used to pass the full bill. Completely accidentally, Hatch thus gave readers the false impression that Conrad opposed the use of reconciliation now, even to pass minor adjustments to the full health bill (). Plainly, Hatch misled Post readers, as Fred Hiatt of course should have known before he published Hatch’s piece. But sure enough! In his own op-ed piece, Conrad was forced to offer rebuttal. The poor guy explained yet again! CONRAD (3/6/10): The role for reconciliation A lot of misinformation has been spread recently about the budget reconciliation process. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I have the primary responsibility for budget-related matters in the Senate. So let me set the record straight. Reconciliation is not being considered for passing comprehensive health-care reform. Major health-care reform legislation passed the Senate without reconciliation on Christmas Eve. If the House now passes that legislation, it can go immediately to President Obama's desk to be signed into law. What the president and others have suggested is that, after the House acts, reconciliation could then be used to pass a much smaller "fixer" bill to allow for modifications to the comprehensive bill that will have passed under regular order. Once again, that could have been a tiny tad clearer. (Key advice: Lose “comprehensive.”) That said: In a rational world, no political journalist could possibly have been confused by what Conrad had written and said. Sadly, this isn’t a rational world. This is a world in Mike Allen prances about, pretending to discuss major issues. In truth, Allen isn’t a political journalist. But he plays one on TV—and he was still deeply confused by what Complex Conrad had said! Good God. Conrad had now explained twice. To anyone who had followed this issue, the whole matter was clear before he explained it. But over at Politico, Mike Allen was still confused. Macaques will never understand flash cubes—and Allen still didn’t get this ALLEN (3/6/10): When Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made this confusing argument last week on “Face the Nation,” we weren’t sure he was being deliberately disingenuous. It was, in fact, spin. Now, he’s made the same case in a similarly obtuse WashPost op-ed, “Reconciliation is not an option for health-care reform.” Don’t misread it: It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland argument FOR the use of reconciliation as part of the recipe for getting comprehensive health reform to the president’s desk: “Reconciliation is not being considered for passing comprehensive health-care reform. What the president and others have suggested is that, after the House acts, reconciliation could then be used to pass a much smaller ‘fixer’ bill to allow for modifications to the comprehensive bill that will have passed under regular order. If the Senate bill can be further improved with changes made through a small ‘fixer’ reconciliation package, we should do so.” Was that actually written in English? At any rate, in this otherwise spot-on post, Jonathan Chait was stunned by Allen’s obtuseness. We have no idea why. For the past decade, people like Allen have spent their time memorizing silly scripts about inane, inconsequential topics. (This has taken the place of what used to be “journalism.”) When such people actually have to explain some matter—or ingest explanation—they often fly into a rage. Macaque-like confusion obtains. For the record, reconciliation is just one of the many central health care topics the press corps hasn’t really explained in the past year. And when the press corps doesn’t explain, we’re left with the statements of partisans. For ourselves, we’re still amazed by the rolling non-explanation of the health bill’s abortion provisions. We’re told that this could kill the whole bill. Has anyone yet explained? Tomorrow, some final confusion. TOMORROW: Have you seen it explained?

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 11 Mar 2010 07:19

  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

• 10 Mar 2010 13:49

  WHAT HATH BEN NELSON WROUGHT! Why would Nelson’s two checks kill the deal? MacGillis didn’t try to explain: FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 When Palin and Gore were 6: Flawlessly, Boehlert issued a challenge (). With great respect, we’ll (briefly) take it. Specifically, Boehlert requested our incomparable help in addressing this passage from Karl Rove’s new book: ROVE (2010): Over the past few decades, Gore had said that he had created the Internet, been the model for Love Story, led a crusade against tobacco, discovered the Love Canal chemical disaster, lived on a farm while vice president, never grew tobacco on his farm, didn't know that his visit to a Buddhist temple was a fund-raiser, faced enemy fire in Vietnam, and sent people to jail as a reporter. It was a compelling life story; unfortunately, none of it was true. Rove at least avoided the phrase, “invented the Internet.” But good God! In our years of work on these brain-dead topics, we don’t think we’ve ever seen anyone make the dumb claim we highlight above. Al Gore had said that he lived on a farm while vice president? With due respect to the ambiguity built into that sentence, sometimes you just have to laugh. (Of course, the Gores owned a small farm while Gore was vice president. It was the same small farm where the Gores were living when Gore, then a Nashville reporter, decided to run for the House in 1976. Duh. This small farm was Gore’s Tennessee residence during the sixteen years when he represented Tennessee in the House and the Senate. In June 1999, Diane Sawyer interviewed the Gores at the time of Gore’s campaign launch. The three of them sat right there on that farm during the whole dad-burned chat.) In that passage, Rove runs through the litany of bungled claims which sent George Bush to the White House. In chapter 2 of How he got there (click here), we’ve already discussed the Internet, Love Story and the farm; in chapter 6, we’ll discuss the bungled Love Canal claim. (It’s the claim which hardened the GORE LIAR narrative—turned it into stone.) But please understand: These bungled claims were set in stone by the mainstream press corps, not by Karl Rove or George Bush. Rove and Bush began citing these claims in March 2000, after the GOP primary race had been decided. By that time, the mainstream press had been pimping these claims for a solid year. (Chapter 3 of How he got there takes place in March—March of 1999. Love Canal hardened this theme into stone in December 1999.) You know how much we love Boehlert’s work. But Boehlert! What’s up with this update? BOEHLERT (3/0/10): It will be interesting is to see how members of the chattering class deal with Rove's book, especially if they take the time to read it and see paragraphs like the one noted above; paragraphs that are literally built upon layers and layers of obvious falsehoods. Will the chattering class call Rove out, or play along? E-Boeh! Of course they won’t call Rove out on that paragraph! That paragraph belongs to the national press; it was they who invented those bungled claims (with some help from the RNC) as part of their jihad against Hated Clinton. They pimped and clowned for two solid years, thus sending Bush to the White House. They will never renounce or revisit those claims. Neither will the long string of “liberal leaders” who pimped those claims around too. Did Al Gore live on a farm as a child? The press corps, pimping Bradley Spin, pretended to wonder about this question as Campaign 2000 began. In a display of astounding bad faith, Candidate Bradley pretended to be concerned by the notion that Al Gore, age 6, had lived with his parents in D.C. during the school year. (Dan Quayle had played this card in 1992. Seven years later, Bradley played it too, along with all the rest of the sewage he borrowed from past Republican efforts. Al Gore introduced the country to Willie Horton! Incredibly, he even pimped that claim—straight from Rush Limbaugh, of course. Pundits raced to repeat it.) Of course, Bradley had just raised his own daughter the same way—in DC, as the child of a respected senator. But as Campaign 2000 began, he paraded about the countryside, pimping this brainless complaint about Gore’s DC upbringing. The national press wolfed it down. (Bradley’s pimping of this theme dated back to 1998. It’s hard to find words for the dumbness, and the flagrant hypocrisy, involved in this sad, sorry nonsense.) (From March 1999 through the end of New Hampshire, the press corps lived for one thing—to pimp Bradley’s spin. How obsequious did they get? In September 1999, Howard Fineman wrote that Bradley’s “love of the average Joe” made him “[Walt] Whitmanesque.” Two other people had described Bradley in that improbable manner that year—Bradley himself, and his wife. Simply put, Fineman licked Bradley’s asp all through the war against Gore. He couldn’t pimp quite hard enough.) Fineman, of course, was a “journalist.” But make no mistake: The liberal political elite is still full of players who pimped this perfect bullroar too. In retrospect, are we impressed with their brilliance? As Rove continues to pimp their sad claims, are we happy with how things turned out? They pretended to be upset because Gore had lived with his parents when he was 6. But then, just yesterday, the “liberal” world hooted and wailed about a similar problem, this time involving Hated Palin at age 6. For a smart person’s silly account, . Things got worse after that. This used to be the Way of Dowd. Increasingly, it’s our way too. PART 2—WHAT HATH BEN NELSON WROUGHTAre you experienced, Jimi Hendrix once asked. His question went out to a whole generation. Today, the basic questions are different. Do you understand, we might ask. Have you ever seen it explained? Over and over, our own answer is: No. But how about you? Do you understand what Ben Nelson Hath Wrought in his crucial language concerning abortion coverage? Nelson created the language about such coverage which now resides in the Senate health bill. By all accounts, the House will be asked to pass this bill; if they pass it, they will pass Nelson’s language. But do you really understand the way the Nelson language would work? For our money, we’ve never really seen it explained. As we noted yesterday, this was Alec MacGillis’ attempt in last Friday’s Washington Post: How would the Nelson language work? Clearly, people who purchase plans which cover abortion would be required “to make two premium payments.” One payment would cover “most of their coverage;” a smaller payment would pay for their abortion coverage. As we noted yesterday, it seems to us that this cursory explanation left a basic question unanswered (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/9/10). But do you understand the part which came next, when MacGillis described the reactions of various interested parties? More specifically, do you understand the passage we highlight below? Have you seen these claims explained? MACGILLIS (continuing directly): Opponents have said that would not go far enough to keep federal money from subsidizing abortion. Democratic leaders disagree, saying it maintains the status quo. Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates have grown increasingly convinced that the language would restrict the reach of abortion coverage nearly as much as the Stupak language in the House bill passed in December. That measure would have forced those who want abortion coverage to buy it in a rider. “There will not be abortion coverage in the exchanges. There just won't be,” said Linda J. Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the Urban Institute. "It's clearly intended to be stigmatizing," said Laura MacCleery of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Leave it to MacGillis! In that first highlighted paragraph, he says experts think few plans would cover abortion. In the next paragraph, he quotes his one expert—and she says no plans would! That said: According to MacGillis, abortion rights groups and health-care analysts are predicting the two-payment requirement would be so “cumbersome” and so “objectionable” that abortion coverage might cease to exist in the exchanges. Do you understand that claim? Has MacGillis tried to explain it? For ourselves, we understand the “objectionable/stigmatizing” part, though each person will have to judge the depth of offense extended by requiring two payments. (Unless we’re misinformed, federal employees have to make two payments if they want abortion coverage. Unless we’re misinformed, this is a long-standing arrangement, accepted by all parties. By the way: Have you seen anyone try to explain this matter, even given the current seriousness of this general issue?) We understand the “objectionable” claim. What we understand is the “cumbersome” claim—the notion that receiving two checks, instead of just one, would be “too cumbersome for insurers.” Are insurance companies really so dainty and/or so strapped that they couldn’t process two checks? Do you think MacGillis made any attempt to explain this improbable statement? Yikes! According to MacGillis, one expert says abortion coverage won’t be available to subsidized buyers at all, all because the two-check arrangement is so cumbersome! That strikes us as an implausible claim. Our question: Why didn’t MacGillis flesh it out? Why didn’t he try to explain it? One possible answer: Given modern press corps culture, it didn’t occur to him to explain. In modern press culture, journalists rarely try to explain; when they’re forced to process an explanation, they will often fumble and flail. That’s what Mike Allen did last week, when Senator Conrad gave a bone-simple explanation of current plans to use reconciliation to amend the Senate health bill (see tomorrow’s HOWLER). Confounded by Conrad’s bone-simple explanation, Allen hooted and leaped about, behaving like a bewildered macaque who has just seen his first flash cube go off. That said, let’s ask our basic question again: Do you understand why insurance companies would cease to offer abortion coverage because receiving two checks was so “cumbersome?” We don’t really understand that—and MacGillis didn’t try to explain. And alas! When scribes like MacGillis refuse to explain, partisans of various stripes are free to offer puzzling accounts of deeply important measures. Such people may be fully sincere; there may well be merit to their accounts. But do you understand what Rep. Jan Schakowsky said on a recent Maddow program? Rachel Maddow asked Schakowsky about the Stupak language. In response, Schakowsky also discussed what Nelson Hath Wrought. Tell the truth. Do you really understand what Schakowsky says in this passage? SCHAKOWSKY (2/23/10): Now, you also mentioned the Nelson language that was in the Senate bill and now remains in the president's proposal. And we're very concerned about that as well. And hopefully we're going to find a process to change that, because, you know, we tried this two-check deal in the past. In 2002, there was the TRADE Act that allowed for 65 percent government support for some insurance for displaced workers. The insurance companies flatly said, “We will not take two checks.” And so what happened is that the worker had to send 35 percent to the IRS, then 100 percent was sent by the IRS to the insurance companies—very complicated. But that was the only way that it would work, because the insurance companies said no to two checks. We believe that they will say no to two checks to cover abortion and the rest of health-care services too. So we're very worried that it will, in effect, keep women from having access to abortions. MADDOW: I feel like it's one thing to have a fight about abortion rights in this country. It's another thing to have a fight about health reform. But to try to make the twain meet and try to fight the abortion battles through health reform is turning out to be both a political and practical disaster. That is my opinion on it. We’re sure there’s merit to Schakowsky’s account of the 2002 Trade Act. But ain’t it inspiring to see the way we progressives stand up to The Interests? According to Schakowsky, the insurance companies flatly said, “We will not take two checks”—and that was the end of the matter! In the current circumstance, could Congress perhaps includes a regulation requiring the companies to accept the two checks? Schakowsky didn’t say. Maddow of course didn’t ask. On Friday, we’ll return to this Maddow program to see the way Maddow herself had explained the consequences of What Nelson Wrought. But please understand: When journalists refuse to explain, we are left with accounts from interested parties. Schakowsky is strongly pro-choice, which is perfectly fine with us. But when we get accounts from such interested parties, we tend to get one-sided accounts—accounts which may not make obvious sense, at least in the way they are offered. Do you understand how Nelson’s proposal would founder and fail because two checks are one too many? Frankly, we don’t understand that either—and we’ve seen no one try to explain it. People! What Hath Nelson Wrought? True to the ways of his floundering tribe, MacGillis didn’t try to explain that. Are you experienced, Hendrix asked. We ask this: Have you seen things explained? Tomorrow—part 3: When Conrad explained.

  Permalink  |  View Entire Page

Search the Site

Custom Search